logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.06.19 2018노2914
위증
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the Defendant’s testimony was not a liquid waterproof on the rooftop floor as a whole, but a liquid waterproof was conducted only on the top of the rooftop rail and the bottom of the floor, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have made a false testimony contrary to memory, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case without any intention of perjury.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances properly explained by the lower court and the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant recognized that he/she was false and false, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

(1) The Defendant did not receive instructions from B from “B for Roof B,” and received instructions for liquid flood control. The implementation of the internal design was liquid flood control, and was not specifically specified with respect to the construction of liquid flood control.

(Evidence Records 76,77 pages) In addition, as to the reasons for the construction of liquid flood control rather than lebane flood control, E testified that the removal cost would be high at the time of expanding the building later, and waste treatment would be complicated (Evidence Records 76 pages). If waterproof treatment is limited to the part on the roof rail and the bottom abutting on the floor as alleged by the Defendant, it would not be likely that the removal and waste treatment would be a big problem. The Defendant appears to have known that the waterproof treatment in this case was related to the entire “rest treatment” on the roof.

② In examining the overall purport of the examination of witness, it is premised on the premise that the entire waterproof treatment on the floor of “the content of all questions and testimony pertains to”, and the purport of the testimony by the Defendant is not limited to “salving and waterproof treatment on the floor between the floor rail and the floor,” and the content of the inquiry also.

arrow